This is a must-read on the issues of statute of limitations and continuous representation an fraud claims. The decision of Judge Griesa admirably and studiously sets forth the history and reasoning behind the statute of limitations, when it accrues, how continuous representation may lenghten the period, and when the attorney-client relationship is over. More than that, it discusses how fraud may be alleged against an attorney in addition to simple legal malpractice.
“Rafter v. Liddle, 05 CV 4296
Decided: August 3, 2006
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Pro se plaintiff Marcia Rafter brings this action alleging that defendants, whom she had retained to represent her in a state court employment discrimination action, committed legal malpractice and other wrongful acts in connection with their legal representation of plaintiff
Defendants are the law firm of Liddle & Robinson, LLP, and a number of attorneys who were associated with that firm during the period it represented plaintiff. Liddle & Robinson is the successor-in-interest to defendant Liddle, O’Connor, Finkelstein, & Robinson (“LOFR”), which was the name of the firm at the time it began representing plaintiff.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on all counts. Defendants argue that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the amended complaint fails to state a claim.
Defendants’ motion relies upon a number of documents not contained in the pleadings and will therefore be treated as a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff opposes defendants’ motion and has cross-moved for summary judgment on the merits of her claim. In support, plaintiff has submitted an affidavit detailing defendants’ alleged misconduct as well as numerous exhibits, some of which are court documents related to the underlying action.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied.” Read the balance of the opinion.